[Friendly debate]
<<<I will make a general statement "standards emerge based on actual use NOT on some IEEE body mandating one". DMT may be superior but it's not the near term solution as far as I can tell. And near term solutions, in areas that require vast amount of capital investement, become long term solutions. So just because DMT is a standard does not
gaurantee success.>>>
I had no idea you were coming from a line-code bias. You were saying Amati was broke and I wanted information to back up your claim. Now you're saying the T1/E1 committee can't set standards. How did we get from there to here?
You're right that just because DMT is a standard it doesn't mean success. There are many hurdles to cross before anyone can claim that laurel. It's a start that DMT is being accepted as widely as it has been. I submit it'll be affirmed even more as carriers choose it over CAP. True, some may deploy CAP, but DMT's "winged chariots are hurrying near." It's a chip race right now.
I agree, too, that we should debate both sides of the issues. I try to back up what I post --- I can't always give my sources, but I can give an indication of a) how they might have the information they do, and b) whether I think their information is solid or still a bit shakey.
I've said over and over timing is the hardest part of the story to predict.
You know, I don't even mind a good argument, but I have to admit I grow impatient with those who seek to manipulate for their own ends. There is a difference between being a long term shareholder and someone who trades it both ways. As one of my friends in the profession says, "Shorting is un-American." Well, not all would agree, but you get his point.
Let's continue the debate.
Regards,
Pat |
